72 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Aradace wrote...

Nautica773 wrote...

Aradace wrote...
I must be the only person that gets it lol...Why are you people making this so black and white when it's not...READ THE GOD DAMNED DESCRIPTION and if it still doesnt clear things up for you, then I feel sorry for you for not having the brain capacity to understand something that falls into a gray area.

Cute idea, but it's not accurate. Or, at least, it's not consistent. On Legion's loyalty mission, blowing up the heretic Geth is considered a paragon option because it doesn't involve "brainwashing" them (read: impinging on their freedom or whatever).

Call me crazy, but blowing up things is more aggressive than reprogramming them.

Actually reprogramming them gets you paragon...and blowing them up gets you renegade....You got it backward.  99% of your dialog choices that are in the top corner are Paragon choices.  While the ones in the bottom right are Renegade choices.  Dunno where you got the idea that rewritting was a "renegade" action but it sure as hell shows up as paragon everytime I do it.

This is a confusing point for many people because the options flip from paragon to renegade positions on the dialogue wheel and vice versa between the first time you talk to Legion about it and the second.

Modifié par marshalleck, 22 février 2010 - 06:27 .

[Aradace]

khevan wrote...

Aradace wrote...

I DO understand that and I already explained that to you...The overall game mechanic, and the CS mechanic CANNOT be held in the same standard. Otherwise, you have a full renegade meter by the end of the first few missions. Again, for the second time...Is your explanation for that.

If you understand that they're inconsistant, then what's the harm in saying that it makes no sense since it's inconsistant?  My preference would be for a different action, or comment, or whatever, to have replaced that interrupt.  I think Cutscene and gameplay mechanics should be consistant with each other, to the point that an action you can take in gameplay has the exact same effect if performed in cutscenes, depending on context.  Punching the reporter on the citadel = renegade action, because it's an overly aggressive action when aggression isn't absolutely needed, while meleeing a geth in the face = neither renegade or paragon, because it's an aggressive action when aggression is absolutely needed (life or death combat.)

The sniper shot doesn't meet the "context" test, because you're still in a life or death situation, and therefore the aggressive nature of the act is required.


Bottom line, this particular interrupt is inconsistent, doesn't make sense, and is therefore stupid and shouldn't be in the game.

Again, as per my explanation...Think of them as "random" acts of aggression that net you the points.  Consistantly killing geth etc. isnt exactly "random" where as taking Garrus' rifle to look at the field, then "randomly" deciding since you have the shot to go ahead and take one, would fall under this category.

[khevan]

Aradace wrote...

Again, as per my explanation...Think of them as "random" acts of aggression that net you the points.  Consistantly killing geth etc. isnt exactly "random" where as taking Garrus' rifle to look at the field, then "randomly" deciding since you have the shot to go ahead and take one, would fall under this category.

Eh, I don't buy it.  You're looking down your scope, see a hostile, have the ability to take a shot, and you take it.  No difference than in the heat of battle.

You sound like you're trying to defend your theory based on an action that is inconsistant irregardless of the theory behind renegade/paragon.  No matter how you think of renegade/paragon, either good/evil, aggro/nonaggro, whatever, that sniper shot doesn't make sense to have a morality attachment to it, simply because it's an action you can take in gameplay and get no morality points for it.

Your theory makes sense, this interrupt does not.

I've said all I really have to say on the subject.  The rest of y'all can continue the debate if you wish.

[Aradace]

khevan wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Again, as per my explanation...Think of them as "random" acts of aggression that net you the points.  Consistantly killing geth etc. isnt exactly "random" where as taking Garrus' rifle to look at the field, then "randomly" deciding since you have the shot to go ahead and take one, would fall under this category.

Eh, I don't buy it.  You're looking down your scope, see a hostile, have the ability to take a shot, and you take it.  No difference than in the heat of battle.

You sound like you're trying to defend your theory based on an action that is inconsistant irregardless of the theory behind renegade/paragon.  No matter how you think of renegade/paragon, either good/evil, aggro/nonaggro, whatever, that sniper shot doesn't make sense to have a morality attachment to it, simply because it's an action you can take in gameplay and get no morality points for it.

Your theory makes sense, this interrupt does not.

I've said all I really have to say on the subject.  The rest of y'all can continue the debate if you wish.

And there again....the word "morality" comes into play.  in ME1...the system was based somewhere in morality...Where as in ME2, as per the medical bay upgrade explanation....The system is NOT based on morality.  Once you throw the word "morals" or "Morality" out the window.  The system is much easier to understand.

[khevan]

Aradace wrote...

khevan wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Again, as per my explanation...Think of them as "random" acts of aggression that net you the points.  Consistantly killing geth etc. isnt exactly "random" where as taking Garrus' rifle to look at the field, then "randomly" deciding since you have the shot to go ahead and take one, would fall under this category.

Eh, I don't buy it.  You're looking down your scope, see a hostile, have the ability to take a shot, and you take it.  No difference than in the heat of battle.

You sound like you're trying to defend your theory based on an action that is inconsistant irregardless of the theory behind renegade/paragon.  No matter how you think of renegade/paragon, either good/evil, aggro/nonaggro, whatever, that sniper shot doesn't make sense to have a morality attachment to it, simply because it's an action you can take in gameplay and get no morality points for it.

Your theory makes sense, this interrupt does not.

I've said all I really have to say on the subject.  The rest of y'all can continue the debate if you wish.

And there again....the word "morality" comes into play.  in ME1...the system was based somewhere in morality...Where as in ME2, as per the medical bay upgrade explanation....The system is NOT based on morality.  Once you throw the word "morals" or "Morality" out the window.  The system is much easier to understand.

Seriously?  If you couldn't understand by context what I meant by morality, it's useless to explain to you.

[Aradace]

khevan wrote...

Aradace wrote...

khevan wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Again, as per my explanation...Think of them as "random" acts of aggression that net you the points.  Consistantly killing geth etc. isnt exactly "random" where as taking Garrus' rifle to look at the field, then "randomly" deciding since you have the shot to go ahead and take one, would fall under this category.

Eh, I don't buy it.  You're looking down your scope, see a hostile, have the ability to take a shot, and you take it.  No difference than in the heat of battle.

You sound like you're trying to defend your theory based on an action that is inconsistant irregardless of the theory behind renegade/paragon.  No matter how you think of renegade/paragon, either good/evil, aggro/nonaggro, whatever, that sniper shot doesn't make sense to have a morality attachment to it, simply because it's an action you can take in gameplay and get no morality points for it.

Your theory makes sense, this interrupt does not.

I've said all I really have to say on the subject.  The rest of y'all can continue the debate if you wish.

And there again....the word "morality" comes into play.  in ME1...the system was based somewhere in morality...Where as in ME2, as per the medical bay upgrade explanation....The system is NOT based on morality.  Once you throw the word "morals" or "Morality" out the window.  The system is much easier to understand.

Seriously?  If you couldn't understand by context what I meant by morality, it's useless to explain to you.

Ok then...According to your "theory" that means every time one of our squad mates goes down and we have to use Medi-gel to get them back up...We shoud be getting paragon points too...Which means that the Paragon actions of applying medi-gel to the wounded Salarian in Thane's recruitment quest, and the Batarian in Mordin's recruitment quest are "inconsistant" as well...Making them pointless as well.

[khevan]

*sigh* I'll take one more shot at this. It's all based on context.

Once again, I'll say that I think your theory about aggression vs non aggression makes sense. You seem to forget that.

However, with the example I gave of punching the reporter vs melee in battle, the same applies to giving medi-gel to the batarian or the salarian. In battle, medi-gel keeps your squad alive, and in a life-or-death situation, it is neither a paragon or renegade action, because you're doing what you must to survive.

Giving the medi-gel to the salarian, or the batarian, are altruistic actions that are not based around said life-or-death situations.

The sniper shot, however, you're still in a life-or-death situation. Mechs are coming to attack you. Killing one of them is neither paragon or renegade, because you're doing what you must to survive, the same as you would in "gameplay" battle.



Context. In the context of the sniper shot, it makes no sense for it to give points on the paragon/renegade scale.

Modifié par khevan, 22 février 2010 - 06:50 .

[Aradace]

Its still the same thing...Now you're going to try and argue paragon vs renegade action....Now we get down to what this is REALLY about lol.

[khevan]

If you can't see the difference between medi-gel in combat and the medigel to the batarian or the salarian, than there's nothing else I can offer in this conversation. And your assumption that there's something else going on besides what I've written is just plain stupid.



You are the only person I've had the (dubious) pleasure of talking to who seems to think that the sniper shot makes sense from any perspective on the paragon/renegade scale. My only assertion throughout this entire "discussion" has been that the sniper shot should not be a renegade interrupt. There should be another interrupt there that makes sense, if they wanted a renegade interrupt there.



Whatever else is "really" going on here, I'm done with this discussion.

[The_mango55]

The sniper shot giving renegade points makes no sense.



They only give you renegade points because it's an interrupt and they have to assign points for an interrupt or people trying to max out renegade would whine about it as a bug.



The Mango has spoken!

[kraidy1117]

I think in ME3, there should be two interruptions like with Mordin. If you wait for the reneage interupt to pass, you get a paragon one (tho it is not that funny) The thing is, who even cares about the moral system? My main Shepard is based off me, every decision made is what I would make, regardless of any moral bar....

[babylonfreak]

Nautica773 wrote...

Aradace wrote...
I must be the only person that gets it lol...Why are you people making this so black and white when it's not...READ THE GOD DAMNED DESCRIPTION and if it still doesnt clear things up for you, then I feel sorry for you for not having the brain capacity to understand something that falls into a gray area.

Cute idea, but it's not accurate. Or, at least, it's not consistent. On Legion's loyalty mission, blowing up the heretic Geth is considered a paragon option because it doesn't involve "brainwashing" them (read: impinging on their freedom or whatever).

Call me crazy, but blowing up things is more aggressive than reprogramming them.

Er Rewriting was Paragon. Bl;owing up was renegade. And Geth are Sapient. LOKI are not. If the target had been an Eclipse, I'd have been fine, but the LOKI was a little, I don't know, detached. It's a toaster, far more than a Geth since Geth are spient. I guess I am a Renegade when I kick my car because it won't start in the morning is Renegade? Yes, yes, I get it, it's aggressive, but then PUNCHING ZAEED IS PARAGON. So. Fail point is fail.

[the120Truth]

HAGA NAGA wrote...

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

That's one of the renegade options I'll always take, no matter how Paragon.
He is an enemy, after all. Kill him now or kill him later doesn't really make that big of a difference.

kinda dumb that using Garrus's sniper rifle to headshot a mech gives you renegade. wtf? you can use your own sniper rifle and nothing wrong with that? just sayin.....

ya, but maybe its renegade because you are using his thermal clips,...........oh wait he has unliminited nevermind

[babylonfreak]

the120Truth wrote...

HAGA NAGA wrote...

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

That's one of the renegade options I'll always take, no matter how Paragon.
He is an enemy, after all. Kill him now or kill him later doesn't really make that big of a difference.

kinda dumb that using Garrus's sniper rifle to headshot a mech gives you renegade. wtf? you can use your own sniper rifle and nothing wrong with that? just sayin.....

ya, but maybe its renegade because you are using his thermal clips,...........oh wait he has unliminited nevermind

But now he has Infinity Minus One. It makes him Divide by Zero. This is definitely Renegade.

[Internet Kraken]

Aradace, one of the paragon interrupts during Zaeed's loyalty mission involves punching him in the face. That is aggressive, but it gives you paragon points. Your theory is wrong.

[Internet Kraken]

double post fail

Modifié par Internet Kraken, 22 février 2010 - 08:30 .

[johannes1212]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Aradace, one of the paragon interrupts during Zaeed's loyalty mission involves punching him in the face. That is aggressive, but it gives you paragon points. Your theory is wrong.

You're not taking it into context, Zaeed was completely driven by rage and revenge, he was essentially a madman at that point, theres no reasoning with a madman if you're a paragon and theres certainly not enough time to try to reason since the whole factory is exploding with hundreds of innocents inside due to his selfish act. A paragon Shep needs to put this mad dog in place for the time being and reprimand him later after the mission.

[averbalin]

Nothing finer than the screams of a frying Batarian.

[Pannamaslo]

I always interpreted paragon/ renegade as altruistic, empathetic vs egoist with  anger management issues.

Sparking Batarian FTW.

Modifié par Pannamaslo, 22 février 2010 - 09:08 .

[Gavinthelocust]

In no other official forum could we have a topic just about a guy gettin zapped in the back with most posts consisting of jokes, I you Bioware.

[Internet Kraken]

johannes1212 wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

Aradace, one of the paragon interrupts during Zaeed's loyalty mission involves punching him in the face. That is aggressive, but it gives you paragon points. Your theory is wrong.

You're not taking it into context, Zaeed was completely driven by rage and revenge, he was essentially a madman at that point, theres no reasoning with a madman if you're a paragon and theres certainly not enough time to try to reason since the whole factory is exploding with hundreds of innocents inside due to his selfish act. A paragon Shep needs to put this mad dog in place for the time being and reprimand him later after the mission.

I'm not saying that paragon Shepard punching Zaeed is wrong. It's just that punching him is clearly an agrresive act. Aradace claims that renegade correlates to being aggresive, and paragon correlates to being non-aggresive. This is clearly not true.

[JedTed]

This is one of the Renegade options i can never resist because of the gameplay advantage it gives. Does anyone know what happens if you don't take the mechanic out? Does the gunship have sheilds or just more hp?

[Kinvarus]

JedTed wrote...

This is one of the Renegade options i can never resist because of the gameplay advantage it gives. Does anyone know what happens if you don't take the mechanic out? Does the gunship have sheilds or just more hp?

It's takes longer to destroy as you stop him from finishing the repairs.  i think with the renegade option it has less armor, whereas if you don't zap him the armor bar is full